Breaking the chains, winning the games, and saving Western Civilization.

Tuesday, December 16, 2014

Alpha Mail: to white knight or not?

MT has a question about his sister:

I have a White Knight concept that I would like you address or clarify at AlphaGame.

In regards to women in physically abusive, or controlling relationships, there will be men who will want to "rescue" them or bring them to the knowledge of their errors by speech or force. This is a continuum. On one end is the sycophantic pedestalizer (we will generously call him Suitor) who may or may not seek justification for romance in his, uhh...noble and selfless efforts. On the other end is the concerned father who wants to protect his daughter from those who would use her. The goal of the men for the woman to be out of the situation is the same, but there are non-trivial differences between Suitor and Father.

1) Suitor comes from a position of relative weakness; Father from relative Strength
2) Suitor approaches for possible personal gain, but may view his actions as dutiful; Father from Duty and Responsibility
3) Suitor has a romantic interest; Father has none*
*2 and 3 may be the same

If it is true that that the preexisting nature of the relationship between a man and another person (wife, daughter, sister, son, stranger...) has bearing on his responsibility to that person, then by charting the case on the axes, you could guess the necessity of action and tactics.

The Suitor cannot ground the woman. The Father can DHSMV, but more as a way to make a fool of the romantic interest, than to set himself up as an alternative mate. Either could attempt violence, ill-advised as it may be, but the perception would change as a function of relative strength and responsibility.

Maybe I hit something here, but certainly, a man's true duty to the safety of another is according to the nature of the relationship. Can you give insight on this situation? My sister-in-law (19, out of state) is sweet, naive and shacked up with a guy with tight game who is controlling and physically abusing her. She isn't under the parents' roof any longer. I'll probably see the happy couple at Christmas. I'd like to see them apart, but I have no binding responsibility to her, or even a great relationship with her. Are there any tactics to address this or is this something to leave lie?

This is a good question. My feeling is that one's involvement in such situations totally depends upon the nature of the relationship. Fathers should speak out forthrightly about what they see. They should not hesitate to use their daughters' reliance upon them, particularly financially, as a counterweight, even in the knowledge that it may cause his daughter to turn against him in the short term. He should, of course, make it clear that he will be there for her when - not if - the unworthy love interest eventually shows his colors.

A brother has no similar leverage. However, he has social power that the father does not. He should relentlessly mock and belittle the unworthy man around his sister, planting the seeds of doubt that will one day blossom once the suitor fertilizes them with his inevitably bad behavior. And he should also make it clear that he will be there for her when the time comes.

A brother-in-law, on the other hand, should stay completely out of it. To be honest, in this sort of situation, I see a brother-in-law who is probably rather attracted to his sister-in-law and is likely to see unsuitability where none exists, and to exaggerate it where it does. In any case, there is no responsibility to intervene here, and indeed, to do so would rightly raise a few eyebrows, especially with the man's wife.

I'm also very suspicious when I hear about a "sweet, naive" girl who is nevertheless "shacked up". This indicates that she is almost certainly neither as naive or sweet as she portrays herself to be to her brother-in-law, in fact, this raises the question as to precisely who is the player in her relationship with the supposedly "controlling and physically abusive" gentleman in question. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if she had a convincing "rape" story she could produce on demand with a catch in her voice and a tear in her eye.

MT is correct. There is a continuum of sorts. But nevertheless, there is a hard and bright line between "family business" and "not family business" that should always be respected, and that line falls somewhere in between "cousin" and "brother-in-law". In most cases, if you find yourself asking "should I polish my armor and mount my steed", the mere fact that you need to ask the question is sufficient reason to say "no". Women have free will, agency, and they are legal adults in the eyes of the law. If they insist on swimming in the deep end despite not being equipped to do so, you have a solemn duty to civilization and the rule of law to let them drown.

31 comments:

My general principle: If the sex of the person in question was the opposite, would you go for the exact same end with the exact same intensity, although some of the methods might be slightly different due to differences in psychology?

If yes, do it. For example, if I had a brother, would I protect him whenever possible? Yes? Then I will protect my sister too.

More needs to be observed in this situation since they are out of state and not visible daily. It would be interesting to know what her upbringing was like and what is going on that is being labeled "abusive".

In a similar situation, a (step)relative of mine was brought up in a divorced home with no boundaries or guidance. She began a relationship with a Croatian man. Rumors of his abusiveness were rampant in the family. Here we are now, 20 years later and she remains a submissive wife who is still quite excited about that Croatian man. His story is that quintessential "rise to the top" immigrant story having arrived here with $40 to his name. Seems his cultural differences were exactly what that flailing, irresponsible family needed.

I tried to help out my sister with her meth head abusive boyfriend. When her house got raided with over 2 pounds inside, I fostered her two kids while she got her shit together. The day she got them back, she went back to the meth head. This has been going on for 5 years with this guy (16 years with every other douche bag meth head), and she's 4 years older than me.

So for me, I walked away. In her meth delusions, she believes that I was the "secret informant" who got her house raided (it was her landlord, and he even told her so) so that I could steal her kids away (my wife and I have 5 kids, but yes, we definitely wanted a bitchy 12 year old and a preemie with lung problems and colic. Ungrateful cunt). When she gets caught again, and she will get caught again, her kids can go in the system.

And before anyone gets all weepy for her, know that she's had at least 5 abortions (those are just the ones I know about) and includes her daughter in the "decision making" process. And she hasn't dated a white guy in 15 years (part of the reason I asked that question about mixed relationships and domestic violence the other day on populi). Anyway, there's my rant. Which I only shared as a way to say, "sometimes, you just have to let them get beat." Especially if you have others that deserve your attentive responsibility, ie, your kids.

I agree that this girl is not "sweet, naive". I'm afraid that this person has "pedestalizer" issues of his own if he doesn't recognize his own naiveness. She is in the relationship because she likes such men. When she breaks up, chances are she will seek a similar man. He can't rescue her. I'm not sure anyone can. I most certainly won't set her up with anyone even if she knows her problem. The responsible thing is nice men should date other nice women. That's why I think the pick-up artist advice corrupts nice men. It spoils the pool so they wouldn't otherwise date nice women.

Bottomline: Bad women are not dateable. You can't fix her. Just like you can't fix an alcoholic, a corrupt women can't be made to see straight. Breaking this women's relationship will only create "experience" to do this again.

He that passeth by, and meddleth with strife belonging not to him, is like one that taketh a dog by the ears.

I've scratched my head over different people over the years wondering why they live in a pigsty/get deeply in debt/always have stupid drama going on with other retards. The only answer I have come up with is "They like it, otherwise they would change it." If you try to show someone a problem in their life that they don't think is a problem, they just hate you and call you a snob or self-righteous.

"he should relentlessly mock and belittle the unworthy man around his sister, planting the seeds of doubt that will one day blossom once the suitor fertilizes them with his inevitably bad behavior."

According to my admittedly limited experience, for a decent percentage of women this will cause her to cling to her bad decision ever more closely. Sometimes because of the "I can change him," thing, and sometimes because they love the drama.

Oak, it depends on the quality of the mocking. Earnestly pointing out his bad qualities or saying she deserves better will drive her further toward him, true. But mocking is something else. It has to be done from a frame of superiority and disinterest, like you think it's funny that she's spending time with such a dumbass.

Don't say that he's bad, because that just trips her Dark Triad triggers. Make fun of him. Say that he's lame, boring, effeminate, that kind of thing.

She may be sweet and naive, but aren't we consistently instructed by the MGTOW denizens that "tight game" only works on bar skanks? So, she should be able to see right through his game.

Or, perhaps because he has tight game, she is having the absolute best time of her life, in a constant passion of dread and doubt and ecstasy of excitement and love and drama. Combined with tight game and teenage hormones....... she is 100% completely unredeemable by human agency.

By the way, instead rescuing her, maybe HE can be rescued? Is he a low life, low IQ, minority status thug with no future at all? Your best bet might be to fix him, it would probably have a greater chance for success.

Daughters will not hold a grudge when dad says no. By all means fathers protect us, pray that our foot never slips near evil. Without the protection of my dad, I've been hurt but I am ok. My car was totaled, my name was trashed and dad picked up the phone to his bro and magic happened. I live someplace safe, a car was worked out, I'm speechless and blessed.

I white knight for dad, fight with collections and insurance companies demanding surgeries for dads eyes. But is that good or bad to unchain me, let loose like a renegade for their care. Some see me walking and they hide in the offices, its like...cleaning up banking again.

I would disagree on the part about being there for them WHEN it fails. I don't like partial threats. Either you're going to drown in that deep end or you're going to swim. If the threat is partial, they dally, try the waters to see if Dad is wrong.

My experience with two daughters has been that the threats were final. You do X, you're not coming back, ever. And I will make sure a letter from the church follows you to all your decided places of worship. And finally, I have to tell them, "you could do that, and it could work out for a while, yes. But in the end, you'll just be 45, alone, with cats."

There will be no safety nets for fornicators, nor the rebellious. If you have consequences from disobedience, you will own them. If you decide to run off with an unapproved mate, you and your children will be anathema. The rules in our house are very clear such that willful disobedience has permanent consequences. There isn't going to be the situation of the daughter running off with some douchebag and then expecting to come back and be a part of my family when she's all married and with kids, much less when it doesn't work out for her.

OT: But the amount of mental jiujitsu being used to elevate Amal Clooney (note she took his last name people's continued attempt to call her Alamuddin) not just George's equal but his superior seems beyond excessive, even for feminists. I don't recall any sort of push with respects to Kate Middleton.

Dexter, he's a little bitch. Aside from possession, he has only ever been arrested for being up girls. He doesn't have the balls to attack a man. But I do have guns, if that's what you were getting at.

Such advice still won't work. She won't listen. The better approach is do nothing. Ignore it. Only when prodded, instill doubt. Let her bring up issues like money or abuse. Be patronizing. Force her to deal with it. You might not want her to marry him, but you can let her know you won't have any problem with it, but will he be a good provider or a good father? She can confront her own problems with him or maybe there are no problems and you really have no cause to worry.

Convince without telling? Use mime? Convincing someone is weak is still using the indirect approach, which will still fail. Mocking and belittling will similarly create an adversarial and uncomfortable situation with her friends or family that will only drive her closer to her man as in "just you and me against the world." Its better to just let the relationship take its course.

If it is truly an abusive and dangerous situation, tell her to call the cops. She knows how these things work. Otherwise, what the heck.

"You seem determined to miss the point: if she gets the impression you're trying to "convince" her of anything, you're doing it wrong."

You seem determined to think you can do it anyways. How hard will it be for her to see your easily disguised ruse? The one that's truly weak has already revealed his hand. That's why I said you should certainly remain quiet and let her bear the consequence of her selection.

From personal experience... if you, her brother, openly show your contempt for the guy (best of all, to the guy's face in her presence), you won't get instant results, but it will help her to justify pulling the plug when she decides she has had enough anyway.

A classic moment: I was sneering at the guy to his face in front of my sister and mother. My mother started defending him, and I turned to her and said, "what are you defending him for? You are always telling me what a moron and loser he is." Since this was true she had no response to it, heh heh. And best of all, when they finally did break up, he decided it was my mom's fault, not mine, and petulantly TP'd her front yard.

Should we be applying the term White Knight like this? If the person is defending a girl the exact same way he would defend a guy... then it seems daft to call it white knighting. Dad's defend daughters. Dad's also defend sons. Saying a dad is white knighting renders the term useless. It changes the phrase to mean simply.. "being protective".

Someone jumps your friend... you jump in with them. Your friend gets himself into trouble in a bar... you help him. Even if he started it. you may slap him around later... but you still help him.

Are you white knighting for your friend?

Fuck no. That's retarded.

White Knighting as a term should only be used to describe people who jump into situations they don't understand and take the female's side purely on the assumption that females are always innocent and need saving.